• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Maister said:
Sincere question: according to some research approximately 50% of the general population at some point engages in an extramarital affair. Why then are we surprised to hear when an elected official has an affair? And why should it affect their ability to discharge the duties of their office?
Click to expand...

I am not surprised but I am disappointed. I also think that if it is 50% (which your likely right) we have a serious cultural issue in America and I would not support a public figure who can't lead by example. However, I think that you bring up a very interesting point, especially in connection with the whole Ashley Madison thing. Have we as a society become too accepting of extramarital affairs? Not saying that women should be required to wear an "A" or be stoned to death, but I do wonder what, if anything, can be done to reestablish the importance of marriage, regardless if one is religious or not.

Or should people change their vows to read "Until death, or someone else, do we part. We as a society have become noncommittal on everything and it is pathetic.

I do think it has a ton to do with his job ability. If we can't trust him to be faithful to his wife, how can we trust him to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States. Granted ignoring the Constitution and everything but the mighty dollar is statusquo in DC but that is because we as a society allow it to be.
 
michaelskis said:
I do think it has a ton to do with his job ability. If we can't trust him to be faithful to his wife, how can we trust him to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States....
Click to expand...

Guess I don't really see the connection between the two. Does that mean [fill in any Senator bankrolled by the NRA] can't be depended upon to uphold the 2nd Amendment if they're boffing their admin assistant? Nope, don't see the connection.
 
Maister said:
Guess I don't really see the connection between the two. Does that mean [fill in any Senator bankrolled by the NRA] can't be depended upon to uphold the 2nd Amendment if they're boffing their admin assistant? Nope, don't see the connection.
Click to expand...

In short, how can we trust them with the little things if we can't trust them with the big things.

Under your logic, it is like saying, it's ok if he shot and killed 100 people, he makes a hell of a pasta dish so we will go to his resturant. Bad people do bad things. I don't support bad people.
 
michaelskis said:
In short, how can we trust them with the little things if we can't trust them with the big things.

Under your logic, it is like saying, it's ok if he shot and killed 100 people, he makes a hell of a pasta dish so we will go to his resturant. Bad people do bad things. I don't support bad people.
Click to expand...

This sort of binary reasoning is way oversimplified - one is either good or evil, black or white? No, reality doesn't work that way. Take LBJ for instance. Here's a guy who had extramarital affairs out the ying yang, but at the same time was one of the most effective Senators in US history in terms of getting various legislation passed. A Senators job is to pass legislation. He passed lots of bills, and brought lots of jobs and $ to his constituents. Folks voted for him in droves because he was very effective in that role. Period.
 
Maister said:
This sort of binary reasoning is way oversimplified - one is either good or evil, black or white? No, reality doesn't work that way. Take LBJ for instance. Here's a guy who had extramarital affairs out the ying yang, but at the same time was one of the most effective Senators in US history in terms of getting various legislation passed. A Senators job is to pass legislation. He passed lots of bills, and brought lots of jobs and $ to his constituents. Folks voted for him in droves because he was very effective in that role. Period.
Click to expand...

Being effective and doing good are two very different things. A Senators job is not to pass legislation, but was created as a check to house of representatives to prevent bad legislation from being passed and to aid in the control of spending as when it was created, almost all of the federal government income came from the individual states and senators were appointed by the states, not elected. Bills and federal legislation was never intended to be an easy process but in today's wheel and deal society, bad legislation gets through way too often.

LBJ increased the involvement in Vietnam and his popularity crashed so badly that he chose not to run for a second term as President in the face of stiff competition. Granted there were some items that he had good intentions on, but bad results long term.

As for black and white and binary. You are correct, but there is a threshold of unacceptable and when it comes to massive trust situations, like the trust of a spouse, then that is a different level then a speeding ticket, causing an accident, or similar matter. I have zero respect for those who cheat on their spouses because their issues go deeper than just surface stuff. To cheat on a spouse violates the foundational concept of trust. Period.
 
That's your opinion. And like I said earlier, and Maister said, I don't think that it necessarily precludes someone from doing good. Again, not condoning it but things happen. We're all humna. If you're expecting people in charge of whatever to always do the right thing and never make mistakes then you're just asking to be disappointed.
 
michaelskis said:
In short, how can we trust them with the little things if we can't trust them with the big things.
Click to expand...

Not to condone cheating or anything, but extra-martial affairs are not a simple black and white issue. The reasons are varied. Getting out of a marriage is not as simple as one suspects. 6 months in CA from date of filling. Unwinding finances. Parenting plans, etc, religious affiliations. This is even more complicated when someone is a public figure. Sometimes couples have arrangements. Sometimes the marriage just dies and you want to feel the thrill of love or lust again. In Europe, affairs are a dime a dozen and treated like a box score. Extra-material affairs are so complicated that again, this isn't as black and white as most conservatives tend to make out. Case in point. My ex-spouse cheated. Does this make her a bad person? No. Does this make her a bad Mother. Fuck no. She is an awesome mother. Does this make her bad spouse? For the most part no. She tried. I tried. Did she make a bad decision? Yes. That's it. She still works hard. She is a great manager. Overall, she is a good person who just made a bad decision.

Why should we continually punish a person for making a bad decision if it has no barring in their decision making process? As long as they are doing their job, who really gives a damn where they get their jollies off of?
 
I am not saying that someone who cheats on their spouse is incapable of doing good things in particular categories of life. But when it comes to being I leader, I can't trust them. I am not saying that ending a marriage is easy. Raf, I respect you for standing up for your ex wife and saying positive, and likely true things about your wife. If my wife did that, I highly doubt that I would be that supportive of her. I have been cheated on by an ex, but it was before any sort of proposal and it ended on the spot. I don't bash her because that is not who I am. But I don't keep in contact with her either. That is the one ex that I can not be friends with today and I have since learned that she has cheated on her husband. Depending on what statistics you read, more than half of those who cheat on a spouse, do it again regardless if it is the same spouse as the first time. It is a decision and a massive decision. I can't trust someone who makes a massive bad decision like that. I have ended friendships with very close friends because they cheated on their wives. I am still polite around them, but I would not trust them enough to hold more than a casual conversation with them.

There are 2 things that I will not do. Vote for someone who has cheated on their spouse and vote for someone who supports abortion. On one hand, if they can't be committed enough to their spouse to end it before cheating, then they can't be committed enough to uphold the Constitution without stepping down. For the second, I can't support someone who supports murder.

And yes, it is my opinion in response to Maister's question. Take it or leave it, it is not going to change.
 
michaelskis said:
I am not saying that someone who cheats on their spouse is incapable of doing good things in particular categories of life. But when it comes to being I leader, I can't trust them. I am not saying that ending a marriage is easy. Raf, I respect you for standing up for your ex wife and saying positive, and likely true things about your wife. If my wife did that, I highly doubt that I would be that supportive of her. I have been cheated on by an ex, but it was before any sort of proposal and it ended on the spot. I don't bash her because that is not who I am. But I don't keep in contact with her either. That is the one ex that I can not be friends with today and I have since learned that she has cheated on her husband. Depending on what statistics you read, more than half of those who cheat on a spouse, do it again regardless if it is the same spouse as the first time. It is a decision and a massive decision. I can't trust someone who makes a massive bad decision like that. I have ended friendships with very close friends because they cheated on their wives. I am still polite around them, but I would not trust them enough to hold more than a casual conversation with them.

There are 2 things that I will not do. Vote for someone who has cheated on their spouse and vote for someone who supports abortion. On one hand, if they can't be committed enough to their spouse to end it before cheating, then they can't be committed enough to uphold the Constitution without stepping down. For the second, I can't support someone who supports murder.

And yes, it is my opinion in response to Maister's question. Take it or leave it, it is not going to change.
Click to expand...

You don't trust someone to uphold the Constitution because they had an affair? Then by this line of reasoning you would certainly never trust someone to CREATE a Constitution if they had an affair, either. I see. Interesting.... (dude, I can't believe you walked right into that one).
 
Maister said:
You don't trust someone to uphold the Constitution because they had an affair? Then by this line of reasoning you would certainly never trust someone to CREATE a Constitution if they had an affair, either. I see. Interesting.... (dude, I can't believe you walked right into that one).
Click to expand...

Did Jefferson likely have an affair with Sally Hemmings, likely. If I was aware of the affair would I have voted for him. Nope. Was Jefferson the only author of the constitution, no. To the best of my understanding, John Adams never had an affair and he is credited for helping guide many of the outlines of the constitution. Additionally, Jefferson sampled from other governmental models as written by Plato and Aristotle. Some would even say he sampled from the bible as well, but there is so many church and state people in here, that I am not going to try to make that argument.

Are you saying that it is ok for people to have an affair? But then again, you did touch the hand of Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton once.
 
michaelskis said:
Did Jefferson likely have an affair with Sally Hemmings, likely. If I was aware of the affair would I have voted for him. Nope. Was Jefferson the only author of the constitution, no. To the best of my understanding, John Adams never had an affair and he is credited for helping guide many of the outlines of the constitution. Additionally, Jefferson sampled from other governmental models as written by Plato and Aristotle. Some would even say he sampled from the bible as well, but there is so many church and state people in here, that I am not going to try to make that argument.

Are you saying that it is ok for people to have an affair? But then again, you did touch the hand of Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton once.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's Jefferson, but don't forget about Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton too, and probably a few other lower profile Founding Fathers we aren't as familiar with.

No, I didn't say it's okay to have an affair. My point is that one's ability to be a great statesman/legislator/political scientist or whatever has no bearing on where/how they get their pickle tickled. If we had folks with the Founding Fathers' smarts and political savvy running today, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat, regardless of who they bonked. I bet you would too - Unless you're saying if Benjamin Franklin were running for office today you'd rather vote for that idiot Ben Carson instead because he hasn't had an extramarital affair (to our knowledge).
 
Maister said:
Yeah, there's Jefferson, but don't forget about Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton too, and probably a few other lower profile Founding Fathers we aren't as familiar with.

No, I didn't say it's okay to have an affair. My point is that one's ability to be a great statesman/legislator/political scientist or whatever has no bearing on where/how they get their pickle tickled. If we had folks with the Founding Fathers' smarts and political savvy running today, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat, regardless of who they bonked. I bet you would too - Unless you're saying if Benjamin Franklin were running for office today you'd rather vote for that idiot Ben Carson instead because he hasn't had an extramarital affair (to our knowledge).
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, and your right. If it was Ben Carson vs Ben Franklin, it would be Franklin hands down. As it is I am not thrilled with any of the candidates. I don't think I would vote for Jefferson because of his salve ownership issue. He pushed to abolish slavery in the constitution but being that it was rejected by others, he still did not have the courage to lead by example. However, to compare people like the founding fathers to those what we have in office today (which is where this conversation started) is like comparing George Washington to George Costanza.

After thinking about it a bit more, you bring up some good points. If a person has exceptional character in every other area of life, maybe I should not rule them out. But I don't see that with anyone in DC right now on either side.
 
Can a man be great at something and still be reprehensible in other ways. YES! Be an effective leader and great political philosopher and still be less than admirable in his personal life? YES.

There was this rich man who pushed the values of an agrarian society and freedom and equality. He lived a lavish life and loved to entertain his friends and associates. Much of the income for his lifestyle was paid for because he made his slaves make nails for sale. His nails were cheaper because his competitor used prisoners to make his nails and he had to pay the prisoners. And when one of this rich fellow's slaves making the nails ran away, you know, to be free, the slave owner had him rounded up and punished. He also had sex with one of his female slaves, who was in no position to say "no." Can sex be consensual when one partner doesn't have the power to consent or not to consent?

Thomas Jefferson - wrote the Declaration of Independence, one of the Founding Fathers and President of the United States. A great man, indeed.

Thomas Jefferson, um, also kind of a selfish prick whose adherence to high standards didn't extend to denying people their freedom to enrich his bottom line or have a sexual relationship with someone who couldn't say "no" without fear of her own well-being. Did Tommy have jungle fever or was he just an exploiter?

So, as far as a politician cheating on his wife being also able to do his job, I would say he couldn't be any worse than the third President of the United States.
 
I thought about it a lot last night, and even prayed about it and I was wrong to pass immediate judgement on candidates who have extramarital affairs. Having said that, I am still not impressed with any of the candidates.
 
So I've been watching this mess with the Speaker of the House elections. At what point do we simply recognize that the GOP may not actually be a political party anymore? It is highly fragmented, has no consensus leader, has not been able to pass meaningful legislation since its 2010 takeover of the House, and the current Speaker is resigning due to actions of a small caucus from within the party. There does not appear to be a unifying platform. Their two leading candidates for President have never held an elected office of any kind. From where I sit, this looks increasingly like a philosophical split in a leaderless party. It could just be a repeat of what happened to the GOP in 1910 or the Democrats in the mid-70s, but this looks & feels different and deeper.

I think the smartest man in the GOP room right now is Paul Ryan, for the simple fact that he is staying away from the Speaker position. He is at least making them beg for him, which will create a much different relationship with the party if he actually caves and accepts the role.

As far as affairs go, let's be honest: affairs are common in relationships. I don't like that this is the case, but it is reality. I've always been hesitant to judge because those relationships are incredibly complex and personal--I don't know what is going on in the relationship that led to affairs, nor do I feel I need to know. It is a personal thing between the parties involved. A friend of mine had an affair and lost virtually all of his friends as a result. I stuck with him not because I thought he made the right decision (I disagreed with his choice to have an affair), but because I felt that he needed a friend at that time more than ever.

I try not to let personal failings influence my voting too much, but there are things that will certainly grab my attention. For example, if you don't have your personal financial house in order, I'm not going to put you in an elected office responsible for budgeting.
 
Will any one be watching the democrat debates tonight? Who do you think will win? Do you think there will be any good fireworks? Do you think CNN will try to pin them against each other like they did the GOP?
 
I'm not expecting anything exciting. I'm a little more left than you. The Republicans and smearing me. I think we need the metric system...

The whole thing will be more of a platform for Hillary than anything else. Oh, and that other guy in case you want to have him run instead.
 
Moral compass is a funny concept. The idea that people can't make reasonable decisions because they don't do things the way they "should" is interesting.

I think the concept has moved to the forefront more lately because of so many politicians who now have to mix religion in with their politics. The Religious Right has brought in this moral test. Since many of the strongest defenders of these concepts end up being the biggest hypocrites, I am not sure that moral compass is the only things people should be judged on anymore.

I like to think that I vote for people who have a good moral compass, but the more I think about it, I am not certain that you being a good father means you will make sound policy decisions. I think it is just really difficult to trust people in government now. Money, greed, and shady back room dealings, really make all people look bad. Someone's moral compass may be good, but they still don't get things done.

I am not sure who can break that conundrum, but I hope we find that person soon.
 
Hink said:
Moral compass is a funny concept. The idea that people can't make reasonable decisions because they don't do things the way they "should" is interesting.

I think the concept has moved to the forefront more lately because of so many politicians who now have to mix religion in with their politics. The Religious Right has brought in this moral test. Since many of the strongest defenders of these concepts end up being the biggest hypocrites, I am not sure that moral compass is the only things people should be judged on anymore.

I like to think that I vote for people who have a good moral compass, but the more I think about it, I am not certain that you being a good father means you will make sound policy decisions. I think it is just really difficult to trust people in government now. Money, greed, and shady back room dealings, really make all people look bad. Someone's moral compass may be good, but they still don't get things done.

I am not sure who can break that conundrum, but I hope we find that person soon.
Click to expand...

I agree but the difficulty is we as a society have so many different concepts of what is moral and what is not. More so, there is some bend in what is moral and what is legal. For example, it is both illegal and morally wrong to murder someone. Some would say it is morally wrong to drink alcohol, but we tried that experiment once before and it didn't work so well. I also think that a good portion of people get their moral beliefs from their religion.

There is no clear cut line on what is, and is not acceptable in society and that grey area is always moving based on what we as a society will allow.
 
Not familiar with The Week so I can't tell you if they have a bend (although I would imagine it is to the left), but the article is pretty interesting.

Grand Old Faction: How the GOP stopped acting like a party
http://theweek.com/articles/582666/grand-old-faction-how-gop-stopped-acting-like-party

In its obsession with flamboyant displays of ideological purity, in its unwillingness to compromise and its fondness for brinksmanship, in its subversive disregard for institutional norms and restraints — in all of these ways, the Grand Old Party is transforming itself before our eyes from a party into a faction.
Click to expand...

A faction aims solely to advance the interests and ideological outlook of its members. It fights for total victory. It doesn't compromise. Special-interest groups are probably the most obvious example of factionalism in action. The NRA never suggests that modest gun control would be acceptable, just as Planned Parenthood never declares that it would be content with moderate restrictions on late-term abortions. Both organizations stake out maximal positions and aim to take down anyone who deviates from them.
Click to expand...
 
michaelskis said:
Will any one be watching the democrat debates tonight? Who do you think will win? Do you think there will be any good fireworks? Do you think CNN will try to pin them against each other like they did the GOP?
Click to expand...

I'll be at a City Council meeting, but even if I wasn't I doubt I'd be watching. I'm not a fan of Anderson Cooper playing the role of moderator--I like him much better for long-form journalism and don't think his skillset/personality is suited to debate moderation. There are tons of professors out there that specialize in communication debate that would be good hosts that could actually lead to a real debate instead of soundbite exchanges. But I digress...

I don't expect fireworks for the simple fact that the democratic candidates haven't gone after each other personally, unlike the GOP which started hurling salvos at one another the second each entered the race. The democratic candidates tend to respectfully disagree with one another and haven't gone all hyperbole as compared to several GOP candidates. I do think you'll see them take shots at Trump & Carson, particularly to demonstrate intolerance, inexperience & lack of leadership on the GOP side of things. I think Cooper will try to pin them against one another if only for the sake of ratings and social media trending, but I don't think they'll be successful. I actually think all of the democratic candidates basically like each other outside of the campaign world. I'm not sure that can be said for the GOP field. In addition, the democratic party isn't dealing with major philosophical fracturing & factions like the GOP.

I fully expect to see the gun control topic teased out in the debate since Sanders does differ from the others.
 
I downloaded the CNN app to my phone and have it streaming on my Apple TV using airplay.

I expect that I will agree with as much as 20 to 40 percent of what is said tonight. I will be interested to hear what their views and ideas are regarding the following:
Gun Control
Economic Equality
Foreign Affairs
Personal Freedom
and Religious Freedoms

I am pro-life and unless I am wrong, all the candidates are pro-choice, so their views are not likely to be different from each other.

I don't know why they have more than 3 people on stage. Jim Webb looks like a WWE wrestler out of makeup. It worked for Jessie the Body, so why not.



8:35
Crap... looks like I just agreed with everything Bernie said about campaign finance.
As for Hillary, yea, that all sounds wonderful, but how the hell we going to pay for it all?
Oh and she starts out by lying after the first question. Anderson Cooper called her out on flip flopping. Well done! Is she for or against gay marriage?

9:22
Interesting, Anderson is trying to to get them to fight with Bernie regarding gun control. None of them have said anything definitive that I would be opposed to, although I like Jim Webb's comments. Keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them and let those who would be responsible with them should be able to carry them.

Clinton has no idea what she is talking about in regards to foreign policy... and she was Secretary of State?
Bernie's response was 100% right on. Let's stay out of it.
 
Last edited:
9:45 update:
All lives matter, we need to stop talking about the e-mails and servers and put things in place to prevent it from happening again, and we do have bigger cultural issues. They are not race issues but they are cultural issues.

10:18
I agree that we need immigration reform. I don't support blanket amnesty, but the process to become a legal US citizen (like most federal processes) is down right ridiculous. I don't support Obamacare though. It failed program several times over.
I am on the fence with the Government paying for anyone going to college because I want to know who is going to pay for it. If it is like the Obamacare, it is the middle class. I don't support illegal immigrants getting free college here. If they become US Citizens, then sure, but then they are not illegal anymore.

10:22
Whaaaat? Bernie almost sounded libertarian there when talking about the patriot act and personal freedoms.
Hillary makes me want to puke. I am surprised that she is not arguing that she is wearing a green jacket. (She wore blue for those of you who didn't watch)

10:27
Hillary said her administration would be different because she is a woman? Wow, way to play the gender card.

10:34
Hillary said that she is an outsider because she is a woman. She plays the gender card like a gambler plays pocket aces.


10:39
Climate Change... and none of them solved the issue. Heck, I would doubt many of them have a total understanding of the issue. Energy production is just one fraction of it. I do like Bernie's comments regarding lobbyists. Hillary's concept of climate change is BS. She did not hunt down the Chinese. We also need to deal with animal production pollution and revamping the existing infrastructure (starting with non-residential buildings and expanding to homes) to be more energy efficient.


10:44
Family leave after birth. Sounds like a great idea, but I am skeptical on how to pay for it. Just saying "Make the rich pay for it" is a load of crap. Exactly how does that work? What about the woman who works days at a small business owned by someone who is just getting by?
 
Last edited:
Best line of the night was by Bernie.... The American people don't give a damn about your emails.
 
Hink said:
Best line of the night was by Bernie.... The American people don't give a damn about your emails.
Click to expand...

True!

After thinking about the debate, I an not surprised that CNN focused on the issues instead of trying to get the candidates to turn on each other. I also was surprised at how few mentions of Trump there was.
 
Cooper went after Clinton pretty hard when he asked about her essentially seeming to change her opinions based upon political expediency. Why should they talk about Trump? It's a Democrat debate and they need to sort themselves out first. Plenty of time to go after Trump if it comes to that.

That said, I'm bascially hoping that whoever wins the presidency will have to deal with a congress made up of the opposite party. I'm quite comfortable with gridlock at this point. I figure the less they can "accomplish" mean the less they can figure out ways to screw me. TYVM.
 
michaelskis said:
True!

After thinking about the debate, I an not surprised that CNN focused on the issues instead of trying to get the candidates to turn on each other. I also was surprised at how few mentions of Trump there was.
Click to expand...

Like most of America, they don't think he will get the nomination. Why waste their time.


---
My other thoughts:

Jim Webb's neck was a twitter handle.
This is Bernie vs. Hilary. Everyone else needs to get out.
If Bernie can get people out to the polls, he will beat Clinton.
She won the debate, but certainly looks weak and beatable.
The Republicans should really focus on the issues, because she is beatable.
The D's need Joe Biden. Badly.

---

Thoughts on other politics:

Trump wants Kasich as his VP. That is an odd combo.
Pot sales in the US will go over $1Billion this year, with near $1billion in Colorado alone.
Paul Ryan isn't stupid enough to take the Speakership. The smart people are staying away.
We are going to go to war with Russia soon....
 
The One said:
So maybe it isn't ok to unload the ole 9mm into a car of fleeing shoplifters in Michigan? Someone explain to me how shooting at a target running away from the scene is self defense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/u...ter-shooting-at-fleeing-shoplifters.html?_r=0

Ok so now imagine one of the bullets killed someone on the other side of the car. Murder 3 at the least.
Click to expand...

I work very close to the shooting in Auburn Hills and have been following it closely. I'd say Metro Detroit and Southeast Michigan are pretty solidly pro-gun however I have yet to hear a single person defend her actions. Even the newspaper comments sections, which are usually about as awful collection of people as one can imagine, are pretty unanimous in saying this woman needed to be charged.
 
michaelskis said:
True!

After thinking about the debate, I an not surprised that CNN focused on the issues instead of trying to get the candidates to turn on each other. I also was surprised at how few mentions of Trump there was.
Click to expand...

Trump is also shocked that more people don't talk about how great he is.

MD Planner said:
Cooper went after Clinton pretty hard when he asked about her essentially seeming to change her opinions based upon political expediency. Why should they talk about Trump? It's a Democrat debate and they need to sort themselves out first. Plenty of time to go after Trump if it comes to that.

That said, I'm bascially hoping that whoever wins the presidency will have to deal with a congress made up of the opposite party. I'm quite comfortable with gridlock at this point. I figure the less they can "accomplish" mean the less they can figure out ways to screw me. TYVM.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of our system. You actually have to get a lot of people to agree to make something happen. If they don't agree then it's not a good enough idea.
 
dvdneal said:
Trump is also shocked that more people don't talk about how great he is.
Click to expand...

The CNN Commentators before the debate were talking about how the candidates will do two things, differentiate themselves from each other, and differentiate themselves form the Republican front runners.

While I agree (and pray) that he does not get the nomination, but he is still in the lead at this point in time. CNN brought up Hillary several times during the GOP debate, granted she is a contender for the nomination, although I pray she is not).
 
Like every year I wish I could vote for a do over or none of the above. I'd rather have any one of you running and I hardly know you.
 
I watched part of the debate. I thought Hillary did very well. I had been wondering lately if she was too damaged by Benghazi and the e-mail scandals to be viable, but I think she did a lot to put that behind her. Bernie did as I expected - he was pretty good at responding to questions in a way to get back to the key things he is running (free education, increasing public assistance, expanding social security and medicare, etc). Martin O'Malley (I didn't even know he was in the race) made a good impression but I don't think he has a ghost of a chance. Lincoln Chafee tanked - he's a nice man whit good ideas, but too hesitant and seemed weak. Jim Webb - is he really a Deomcrat? He sounds and looks like a Republican, except that he isn't mean.

I liked when I think it was O'Malley called Trump a carnival barker.

Nice to see a group of adults debate and talk about the issues without being nasty and acting like bufoons.
 
dvdneal said:
Like every year I wish I could vote for a do over or none of the above. I'd rather have any one of you running and I hardly know you.
Click to expand...

Whose Yur Planner said:
Nah, I don't think any of us want it. There is a reason very few planners go into politics.
Click to expand...

I might be up for it. Comes with a sweet pension, bodyguards for life and at the end they name a library after you.

I just don't think I am electable.
 
otterpop said:
I might be up for it. Comes with a sweet pension, bodyguards for life and at the end they name a library after you.

I just don't think I am electable.
Click to expand...

Yes, but every NIMBY out there is gunning for you in and out of office. Sometimes literally, hence the body guards.
 
Mike Huckabee seems like a affable fellow, but he is a pit bull in the guise of a "labrador". Bless his heart. :D
 
You didn't use your Southern to English dictionary. "Bless his heart" is an insult disguised as a blessing. You can't go adding actual insults or truth to the statement.
 
I know the town well, I've even been to the theater a couple times. The attitude out here, if you have you're concealed carry than you're a gun expert. Of course you shouldn't be playing with your gun in the theater. It does tend to disturb people. Plus, shouldn't you have the safety on?

Had to add this:

A state law recently went into effect allowing gun owners to conceal and carry without training or a permit, KWCH pointed out.
Click to expand...
 
Good God, you can get a concealed carry permit with no training. Just unreal. I guess those three little words in the amendment are optional: . . . a well trained . . . I can see how that would be bothersome to 2nd Amendment folks. :r:
 
To be correct, Kansans are not required a permit at all to conceal and carry. The only reason to get a permit is so you can carry in the other states that recognize our permit and to do that you get an 8 hour class.

So yes, as a Kansan, I can go out and buy a gun tomorrow and carry it tucked under my shirt. I just need a permit to leave the state like that.
 
Hi, my name is Mike and I am pro-gun. If you have a gun in your house, you should have an appropriate level of training on how to use it, and when to use it. If you take your gun out of your home, you should have gone through classes taught by licensed and qualified professionals dealing with firearms training AND legal personnel who will provide a realistic picture on when it is and is not ok to remove the gun for your holster, AND range time to show that you can proficiently use the weapon BEFORE you are able to carry while loaded in any capacity.

Michigan and NC both have these requirements and I have to go through the process all over again down here. I am 100% fine with it because training and guidance by processionals makes me a better marksman and the classroom and legal training is always a good thing to remind you that even if you do everything by the letter of the law, someone will likely sue you, so it better be a life of death situation before you consider pulling that gun out of the holster.
 
Back
Top